Defeat DCS want to thank everyone for their interest in the upcoming class action lawsuit. Most anti-CPS organizations are joining forces in this lawsuit and we are calling ourselves "Coalition." CPS has been allowed to terrorize children and innocent parents for far too long. Many of us trying contacting our government officials, cooperating with CPS, you name it and it was all a failure. It is truly shameful that some of the things CPS are allowed to get away with are basically the same things that were allowed in Nazi Germany. The only way to get any justice with these people is through lawsuits. CPS is out of control and it is time that the innocent take our country back. As reported many times before, we are working diligently on a class action lawsuit involving all states. If you have been tortured by a Children's Services agency, we want you to join us in our lawsuit. You will not be asked for any money, only what happened in your case. We want to help you and we need you.
Currently, there is a questionaire being sent out, so the attorneys can put the case together. If you want a copy of the questionaire, email Jane at jane@abusefreedom.com to receive a form you need to fill out.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Mother Gets Child Back-But For How Long?
This story was taken from the Legally Kidnapped Website. You just have to love how efficient Children's Services is in this country (sarcasm mode turned off).
A 5-year-old put in foster care under questionable circumstances is back with her mother but the mother is still battling DHS. Attorney Natalie Cronk said DHS unexpectantly called Jessica Wilbur after my article ran last Wednesday about DHS putting the child into foster care based on a document signed by the non-custodial father.
DHS informed Wilbur she could have her child back if she signed a “safety plan.” These plans are devised to ensure children in this situation have a safe home. But this safety plan had nothing to do with what DHS alleged was the reason for taking the child away from her mother – sexual abuse.
The father Robert Nino reported an allegation to DHS but a doctor said the child had no signs of sexual abuse. There was never an investigation initiated and the mother never received any paperwork of this voluntary foster care signed over by Nino.
Cronk said she took Wilbur to the foster home last Wednesday and brought the child home. At one point, sheriff deputies arrived after Nino called them but they left after finding out there was no court order to keep the child at the foster home. And nobody from DHS showed up to stop it.
DHS continues to call Wilbur, after being told to contact Cronk, wanting her to sign off on the safety plan. Cronk advised Wilbur against it because she didn’t do anything wrong and it addresses things that were never mentioned until now. The safety plan says Wilbur’s mentally challenged sister can’t be a caregiver, which she never has been. The other requirement is that Wilbur have the proper paperwork, so the child can receive medical attention and education if Wilbur isn’t available.
There’s several things that don’t add up with this case. The voluntary foster care document wasn’t signed by a parent with custodial rights, DHS not opening an investigation into the abuse allegations, the safety plan that has nothing to do with abuse and why wasn’t the child returned before this if the allegations were being taken seriously by DHS?
Is anybody else thinking lawsuit?
A 5-year-old put in foster care under questionable circumstances is back with her mother but the mother is still battling DHS. Attorney Natalie Cronk said DHS unexpectantly called Jessica Wilbur after my article ran last Wednesday about DHS putting the child into foster care based on a document signed by the non-custodial father.
DHS informed Wilbur she could have her child back if she signed a “safety plan.” These plans are devised to ensure children in this situation have a safe home. But this safety plan had nothing to do with what DHS alleged was the reason for taking the child away from her mother – sexual abuse.
The father Robert Nino reported an allegation to DHS but a doctor said the child had no signs of sexual abuse. There was never an investigation initiated and the mother never received any paperwork of this voluntary foster care signed over by Nino.
Cronk said she took Wilbur to the foster home last Wednesday and brought the child home. At one point, sheriff deputies arrived after Nino called them but they left after finding out there was no court order to keep the child at the foster home. And nobody from DHS showed up to stop it.
DHS continues to call Wilbur, after being told to contact Cronk, wanting her to sign off on the safety plan. Cronk advised Wilbur against it because she didn’t do anything wrong and it addresses things that were never mentioned until now. The safety plan says Wilbur’s mentally challenged sister can’t be a caregiver, which she never has been. The other requirement is that Wilbur have the proper paperwork, so the child can receive medical attention and education if Wilbur isn’t available.
There’s several things that don’t add up with this case. The voluntary foster care document wasn’t signed by a parent with custodial rights, DHS not opening an investigation into the abuse allegations, the safety plan that has nothing to do with abuse and why wasn’t the child returned before this if the allegations were being taken seriously by DHS?
Is anybody else thinking lawsuit?
One of the Great Myths of Abuse
The following article is from the Japan Times (written by Colin P.Jones) and it discusses one of the great myths when it comes to "abuse." In the article, it mentions the common belief that only men are abusers. This is in no way a slam against women. In fact, Defeat DCS has both men and women as part of our organization. However, we want to provide thought provoking stories about whom CPS loves to attack. The three main targets are 1)Poor people. They despise anyone who can afford a decent attorney 2)Minorities. African-American women are often targeted by CPS because many are single parent homes and low income. 3)Men. CPS frowns upon any man who has the audacity to want to raise their children. This article points out how men are sometimes unfairly targeted as the only gender capable of abuse. Times have changed people and domestic violence often occurs on both ends of the spectrum. Consider this:
Before the Christopher Savoie case hit the news, Japanese commentators on the Hague Convention on international parental child abduction had already begun fretting over the completely unsubstantiated assertion that "almost all" instances of children being brought to Japan involve a Japanese mother fleeing from an abusive foreign father. Would Japan signing the convention result in them being sent back? they asked. This is not an unreasonable concern, though I doubt any of these commentators would go so far as to approve of foreign parents taking children out of Japan to escape an abusive Japanese spouse.
Custody battles: Canadian Murray Wood's efforts to reconnect with his children, who were abducted to Japan by their mother, are featured in the forthcoming documentary "From the Shadows."
Most advanced nations have fairly extensive legal regimes designed to help prevent domestic violence and protect its victims. For this reason, while the Hague Convention contains an exception that says a child does not have to be returned if "there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation," the prevailing view has been that this means children should not be returned to war zones, famine conditions or other extremely harmful environments — claims of domestic violence, however, should be left up to the legal system of the country from which the child was abducted, just like child custody issues.
It is debatable, of course, whether Japan or any other country deals with domestic violence adequately. There is also a growing view (including among some U.S. courts dealing with Hague cases) that the convention does not adequately provide for situations where a parent is seeking to protect herself or her children from domestic violence. Although the convention remains silent on the issue, a recent Yomiuri editorial calling for "careful consideration" of cases involving domestic violence suggests that Japan might simply apply the existing exceptions to prevent the return of children even if it does join.
The problem is that Japanese courts and other governmental agencies appear to deal with domestic violence by applying two simple rules of thumb: that domestic violence is only committed by men against women and children, and that almost any conduct (by men) constitutes domestic violence.
I have met Japanese and foreign men alike who are shocked to find themselves accused of domestic violence in divorce or child custody proceedings, only to discover that the "violence" refers to a past argument in which he raised his voice. This is because, as with abduction itself, domestic violence has a very fuzzy definition. A 2001 article by a Japanese family court investigator is instructive: It lists a number of categories of behavior that she considers to be violence, including physical violence, verbal violence, psychological violence (which can include being excessively quiet and non-responsive!), sexual violence and "educational violence." With the notion of "violence" now encompassing a variety of types of conduct that do not involve physical strength, one would expect it to apply increasingly to women also, but no, I have never seen or heard of a single case where a wife or mother has been found to have committed even "verbal violence."
Based on conversations with Japanese lawyers and the cases I have heard of, it appears relatively easy for a woman to get a restraining order against her husband — one that prevents him from even seeing his children for up to six months — and other dispositions that prevent him from getting information about his own children from schools and government agencies, based on an assertion of violence. Combine this with the all- encompassing definition of "violence" and the fact that there seem to be few (if any) constitutional or other substantive rights in the parent-child relationship in Japan, and that relationship can be terminated with shocking ease if the right buttons are pushed.
This is not to say that domestic violence is not a problem in Japan, or that men do not perpetrate it against women (I have heard some horrific stories on this subject in Japan also). Restraining orders and the withholding of information are vital protections in cases where the safety of adult or child victims of abuse is at risk. But at the same time, the system seems wide open to abuse, particularly in Japan's "winner takes all" regime of sole custody after divorce. Furthermore, as a number of studies in other countries have shown, domestic violence is a complex issue and involves abuse by both men and women in all sorts of relationships. Child abuse is similarly complex, with the Japanese government's own statistics showing that mothers are the primary (or sole) abuser in the majority of cases (though this of course may simply reflect that fact that mothers may also be the sole caregiver or otherwise spend much more time with the children).
Caught in the crossfire: The Christopher Savoie case has refocused attention on the issues surrounding parental child abduction to Japan. COURTESY OF CHRISTOPHER SAVOIE
While abuse may be a significant factor in some cases of abductions to Japan, the only one that immediately springs to my mind is that of Samuel Lui. According to his account, his child was brought to Japan 10 years ago by his Japanese wife after she had been arrested on charges of spousal abuse (although his California custody order was recognized in Japan all the way up to the Supreme Court, he was of course not able to get his child back). Regardless of how often it is actually the case, however, "Japanese women fleeing abusive foreign men" is probably a usefully simplistic way to both frame the issue on the Japanese side of the debate and set the stage for implementing the convention in a way that spares most judges the need to ever send children back.
Similarly, when confronting complex reality, Japanese courts seem to prefer simplistic rules that minimize the need to take responsibility for exercising judgment in the resolution of a case. Thus, "domestic violence is committed by men against women" is probably a useful rule of thumb in the same way as "always give custody to the mother" is. No judge or other court bureaucrat is likely to ever be blamed for following either of these rules. Of course, both would seem to be problematic assumptions in light of constitutional and statutory requirements mandating gender equality in family law, but the use of simplistic rules to facilitate efficient, blame-free case resolution probably trumps such considerations.
Furthermore, simply assuming all assertions of abuse (by men) to be true is probably much easier than actually dealing with the difficult evidentiary issues such cases can present. For example, over two years ago a foreign father lost custody of his child to his deceased Japanese wife's parents based on allegations of child abuse. A central piece of evidence in his trial was a statement supposedly made by his 4-year-old daughter describing the alleged abuse. At the time, however, the only person who supposedly heard this statement was the grandmother who was seeking custody. The local child welfare agency that acted on her report did not even meet the child until after they had taken her into protective custody (which involved simply leaving her with the grandparents) and litigation to remove the father's custody rights had begun. Even then, according to the father, they only conducted an interview because he demanded they do so, expecting it would show the allegations to be false.
Indeed, the child did not repeat the alleged statement to the agency investigator, who in any case refrained from asking too many questions "in the best interests of the child." Perhaps feeling some pressure to find the child "damaged" in some way, the investigator did note that the 4-year-old child "had a short attention span" and "did not respond well to long questions," suggesting a depressing lack of understanding of children on the part of an agency charged with their welfare!
A court investigator subsequently met with the agency, but essentially relayed back to the judge the time line of the case and the original alleged statement reported by the grandmother. The fact that this was by now double or triple hearsay supposedly spoken by a 4-year-old child neither he nor the investigator had even met, and reported by a party with an obvious motive to lie, did not stop the judge from declaring the child's words to be "accurate" and stripping the father of custody (the case is currently on appeal).
That all contact with a child can be cut off based on a barely substantiated assertion of abuse is rather horrifying from the standpoint of a parent. But it makes sense from the standpoint of the courts and other bureaucrats. Once abuse has been asserted, who wants to be responsible for a child or mother being killed or maimed because the assertion was ignored? It is probably the same dynamic that explains Japan's high conviction rate — a good percentage of the people arrested for crimes or accused of domestic abuse probably are actually guilty, so the safest thing to do is treat all of them as guilty. Unfortunately, in child custody litigation this mentality is ripe for abuse, which nobody seems interested in addressing (I once asked the head of a child welfare agency what procedures they had to prevent spurious allegations of abuse from being used to win child custody cases — his answer, essentially, was "none").
Thus, if Japan does sign the Hague Convention, the notion that "almost all cases involve Japanese women fleeing abusive foreign men" may prove to be a self-fulfilling supposition. Mothers bringing children back to Japan will know in advance (or afterward when getting legal advice in Japan) that asserting abuse will make it more likely that the children will not be sent back. Even though most women in this situation will probably not go so far as to lie about abuse, they will not have to, since the concept is now so broadly and subjectively defined that it probably be truthfully asserted (by women) in the context of almost any marriage that turns into a hostile divorce. Judges, lacking any real power to actually send children back, may find it easier to just use the alleged abuse as an excuse for ratifying the status quo.
Japan signing the Hague will be a step forward even if its immediate impact is nothing more than an expression of intent. Perhaps Japan will even take steps to amend its domestic laws to provide greater remedies for enforcement. Perhaps my cynicism will prove unwarranted. But I am cynical because my approach to this issue is not based on what Japanese law does or doesn't say, but on what is in it for the judges and other bureaucrats. From that standpoint, if Japan does sign the Hague, the question in my mind will be, "Who wants to be the first judge in Japan to send a child back?" Add "when there are allegations of abuse" to that question and perhaps others will find themselves becoming cynical also.
Colin P. A. Jones is a professor at Doshisha Law School in Kyoto. Send comments on this issue to community@japantimes.co.jp
The Japane
Before the Christopher Savoie case hit the news, Japanese commentators on the Hague Convention on international parental child abduction had already begun fretting over the completely unsubstantiated assertion that "almost all" instances of children being brought to Japan involve a Japanese mother fleeing from an abusive foreign father. Would Japan signing the convention result in them being sent back? they asked. This is not an unreasonable concern, though I doubt any of these commentators would go so far as to approve of foreign parents taking children out of Japan to escape an abusive Japanese spouse.
Custody battles: Canadian Murray Wood's efforts to reconnect with his children, who were abducted to Japan by their mother, are featured in the forthcoming documentary "From the Shadows."
Most advanced nations have fairly extensive legal regimes designed to help prevent domestic violence and protect its victims. For this reason, while the Hague Convention contains an exception that says a child does not have to be returned if "there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation," the prevailing view has been that this means children should not be returned to war zones, famine conditions or other extremely harmful environments — claims of domestic violence, however, should be left up to the legal system of the country from which the child was abducted, just like child custody issues.
It is debatable, of course, whether Japan or any other country deals with domestic violence adequately. There is also a growing view (including among some U.S. courts dealing with Hague cases) that the convention does not adequately provide for situations where a parent is seeking to protect herself or her children from domestic violence. Although the convention remains silent on the issue, a recent Yomiuri editorial calling for "careful consideration" of cases involving domestic violence suggests that Japan might simply apply the existing exceptions to prevent the return of children even if it does join.
The problem is that Japanese courts and other governmental agencies appear to deal with domestic violence by applying two simple rules of thumb: that domestic violence is only committed by men against women and children, and that almost any conduct (by men) constitutes domestic violence.
I have met Japanese and foreign men alike who are shocked to find themselves accused of domestic violence in divorce or child custody proceedings, only to discover that the "violence" refers to a past argument in which he raised his voice. This is because, as with abduction itself, domestic violence has a very fuzzy definition. A 2001 article by a Japanese family court investigator is instructive: It lists a number of categories of behavior that she considers to be violence, including physical violence, verbal violence, psychological violence (which can include being excessively quiet and non-responsive!), sexual violence and "educational violence." With the notion of "violence" now encompassing a variety of types of conduct that do not involve physical strength, one would expect it to apply increasingly to women also, but no, I have never seen or heard of a single case where a wife or mother has been found to have committed even "verbal violence."
Based on conversations with Japanese lawyers and the cases I have heard of, it appears relatively easy for a woman to get a restraining order against her husband — one that prevents him from even seeing his children for up to six months — and other dispositions that prevent him from getting information about his own children from schools and government agencies, based on an assertion of violence. Combine this with the all- encompassing definition of "violence" and the fact that there seem to be few (if any) constitutional or other substantive rights in the parent-child relationship in Japan, and that relationship can be terminated with shocking ease if the right buttons are pushed.
This is not to say that domestic violence is not a problem in Japan, or that men do not perpetrate it against women (I have heard some horrific stories on this subject in Japan also). Restraining orders and the withholding of information are vital protections in cases where the safety of adult or child victims of abuse is at risk. But at the same time, the system seems wide open to abuse, particularly in Japan's "winner takes all" regime of sole custody after divorce. Furthermore, as a number of studies in other countries have shown, domestic violence is a complex issue and involves abuse by both men and women in all sorts of relationships. Child abuse is similarly complex, with the Japanese government's own statistics showing that mothers are the primary (or sole) abuser in the majority of cases (though this of course may simply reflect that fact that mothers may also be the sole caregiver or otherwise spend much more time with the children).
Caught in the crossfire: The Christopher Savoie case has refocused attention on the issues surrounding parental child abduction to Japan. COURTESY OF CHRISTOPHER SAVOIE
While abuse may be a significant factor in some cases of abductions to Japan, the only one that immediately springs to my mind is that of Samuel Lui. According to his account, his child was brought to Japan 10 years ago by his Japanese wife after she had been arrested on charges of spousal abuse (although his California custody order was recognized in Japan all the way up to the Supreme Court, he was of course not able to get his child back). Regardless of how often it is actually the case, however, "Japanese women fleeing abusive foreign men" is probably a usefully simplistic way to both frame the issue on the Japanese side of the debate and set the stage for implementing the convention in a way that spares most judges the need to ever send children back.
Similarly, when confronting complex reality, Japanese courts seem to prefer simplistic rules that minimize the need to take responsibility for exercising judgment in the resolution of a case. Thus, "domestic violence is committed by men against women" is probably a useful rule of thumb in the same way as "always give custody to the mother" is. No judge or other court bureaucrat is likely to ever be blamed for following either of these rules. Of course, both would seem to be problematic assumptions in light of constitutional and statutory requirements mandating gender equality in family law, but the use of simplistic rules to facilitate efficient, blame-free case resolution probably trumps such considerations.
Furthermore, simply assuming all assertions of abuse (by men) to be true is probably much easier than actually dealing with the difficult evidentiary issues such cases can present. For example, over two years ago a foreign father lost custody of his child to his deceased Japanese wife's parents based on allegations of child abuse. A central piece of evidence in his trial was a statement supposedly made by his 4-year-old daughter describing the alleged abuse. At the time, however, the only person who supposedly heard this statement was the grandmother who was seeking custody. The local child welfare agency that acted on her report did not even meet the child until after they had taken her into protective custody (which involved simply leaving her with the grandparents) and litigation to remove the father's custody rights had begun. Even then, according to the father, they only conducted an interview because he demanded they do so, expecting it would show the allegations to be false.
Indeed, the child did not repeat the alleged statement to the agency investigator, who in any case refrained from asking too many questions "in the best interests of the child." Perhaps feeling some pressure to find the child "damaged" in some way, the investigator did note that the 4-year-old child "had a short attention span" and "did not respond well to long questions," suggesting a depressing lack of understanding of children on the part of an agency charged with their welfare!
A court investigator subsequently met with the agency, but essentially relayed back to the judge the time line of the case and the original alleged statement reported by the grandmother. The fact that this was by now double or triple hearsay supposedly spoken by a 4-year-old child neither he nor the investigator had even met, and reported by a party with an obvious motive to lie, did not stop the judge from declaring the child's words to be "accurate" and stripping the father of custody (the case is currently on appeal).
That all contact with a child can be cut off based on a barely substantiated assertion of abuse is rather horrifying from the standpoint of a parent. But it makes sense from the standpoint of the courts and other bureaucrats. Once abuse has been asserted, who wants to be responsible for a child or mother being killed or maimed because the assertion was ignored? It is probably the same dynamic that explains Japan's high conviction rate — a good percentage of the people arrested for crimes or accused of domestic abuse probably are actually guilty, so the safest thing to do is treat all of them as guilty. Unfortunately, in child custody litigation this mentality is ripe for abuse, which nobody seems interested in addressing (I once asked the head of a child welfare agency what procedures they had to prevent spurious allegations of abuse from being used to win child custody cases — his answer, essentially, was "none").
Thus, if Japan does sign the Hague Convention, the notion that "almost all cases involve Japanese women fleeing abusive foreign men" may prove to be a self-fulfilling supposition. Mothers bringing children back to Japan will know in advance (or afterward when getting legal advice in Japan) that asserting abuse will make it more likely that the children will not be sent back. Even though most women in this situation will probably not go so far as to lie about abuse, they will not have to, since the concept is now so broadly and subjectively defined that it probably be truthfully asserted (by women) in the context of almost any marriage that turns into a hostile divorce. Judges, lacking any real power to actually send children back, may find it easier to just use the alleged abuse as an excuse for ratifying the status quo.
Japan signing the Hague will be a step forward even if its immediate impact is nothing more than an expression of intent. Perhaps Japan will even take steps to amend its domestic laws to provide greater remedies for enforcement. Perhaps my cynicism will prove unwarranted. But I am cynical because my approach to this issue is not based on what Japanese law does or doesn't say, but on what is in it for the judges and other bureaucrats. From that standpoint, if Japan does sign the Hague, the question in my mind will be, "Who wants to be the first judge in Japan to send a child back?" Add "when there are allegations of abuse" to that question and perhaps others will find themselves becoming cynical also.
Colin P. A. Jones is a professor at Doshisha Law School in Kyoto. Send comments on this issue to community@japantimes.co.jp
The Japane
Monday, November 16, 2009
Never Cooperate With CPS Without a Court Order
This is useful information taken from the S.P.A.R.C. website.
Dealing With CPS:Do Everything By Court Order
You should require a court order before complying with any “demands” the agency might make. When the agent starts saying you need to do this or that, your response might be:
Mrs. Government Agent, I’m happy to do all that is asked of me by the court. Do you have a court order for the things you are asking? The agent might say, “No I don’t have a court order, but the court will require you to do the things I’m asking anyway and it will please the judge if you have them completed early.”
By now, this person is likely someone that you greatly distrust. If the agent is anything like the norm, she’s already lied to you, misled you and broken several laws and procedures. Certainly you wouldn’t believe anything a person of this stature says without collaborating it first. Your response to the above statement might be:
I’m thankful that you are trying to assist me in completing things you believe the court might require of me. I appreciate your concern.
However, I wish to follow the legal channels set in place for matters such as these. I know the court will base requirements imposed on me on specific findings of abuse or neglect. I prefer to wait for my day in court to defend the allegations made against me rather than acting as a guilty person by complying with demands put on child abusers now.
I’m confident the evidence will support my innocence and the court will be able to see through the allegations and not impose conditions on me intended for child abusers. You do not need to take child rearing (parent training) classes or have a psychological evaluation until it is court ordered. It shouldn’t be court ordered until the court has adjudicated you guilty of abuse or neglect. Sometimes, however, courts get in the habit of ordering all parents to complete child rearing classes, psychological evaluations and drug screens as part of the temporary orders. They believe it is an easy (and lazy) way of moving cases through the system more quickly. However, federal courts have held that such restrictions can’t be imposed on parents without first finding that abuse or neglect did occur and second, finding some cause that the requirements are actually needed.
Even after abuse or neglect has been adjudicated; before a psychological evaluation can be ordered, there needs to be some justification for it, rather than simply ordering them for all parents. The same applies to drug screens. There must be some reason to suspect drug use and it’s relationship to child abuse before a drug screen can be imposed. Likewise, there needs to be some judicial finding of parental unfitness before child rearing classes can be imposed. If a Judge orders these things in the temporary orders in your case, you should object orally in open court while they are being ordered. Your response might be:
Your Honor, we object to these requirements being imposed without a judicial finding that creates a need for them. The court is so accustomed to doing everything with a rubber-stamp and herding families through like cattle, that you’ll need to show them you’re a little different; you’re actually going to insist on compliance with the law. [Editor's Note: In some instances, balking at a drug test can be construed as an admission of guilt. If your children are important to you, a drug test shouldn't be an issue. If there is a substance abuse problem, the quicker you seek treatment, the sooner you'll be well. Don't be afraid to admit to a judge your mistakes in the past that you've conquered. Do be afraid to go before a judge and think you could conceal drug problems.]
The Judge may ignore your objection and impose the requirements anyway. If this happens, you should file an appeal to the state court of appeals. Contact the CPS Watch legal department for assistance in finding caselaw to use for the appeal. If you aren’t in open court when the orders are made, but they are simply provided to you later, you’ll need to file a Motion to Reconsider with the court asking them to remove the restrictions imposed before you appeal. In other words, you need to give the Judge an opportunity to voluntarily rescind the orders before going to the appellate court.
Sometimes it may be to your advantage to voluntarily complete some things outside of a court order. If this is the case, it should be done completely on your own, because you want to or need to, and without the advice or assistance of the state agent. As an example, if the state is alleging that you were “high” at the time the children were taken, you may want to rush to the hospital for a drug screen to prove you weren’t. Or the allegations might be that you are “often stoned” and leave the child to fend for himself. In this case, you might choose to get a drug evaluation to offer as evidence in your defense.
There might be an allegation that you are mentally unstable because your mother committed suicide or some other reason. You could choose to get a psychological evaluation to combat these accusations. If you have an evaluation or take child rearing classes, either by court order or by choice, choose your own therapist. Do not go to the person the state agent recommends. When interviewing therapists or counselors, ask them if they contract with the state. If they do, go elsewhere. If you have reason to distrust the state, it doesn’t make much sense to trust those that do business with the state.
When choosing a therapist or counselor, question them closely to make certain they share or respect your closely-held convictions. If you are Christian, choose a Christian counselor or enroll in a Christian-based child rearing class. If you are a vegetarian, choose a counselor that will respect the choice you’ve made for your family. If you homeschool, chose a counselor that understands and respects homeschooling. Do not sign a release of information for the state agent to speak with your therapist or obtain records. If you’ve gone voluntarily prior to a finding of abuse or neglect, you will bring the information to court with you to use in your defense. There’s no reason for the state agent to have it unless they have a court order. If the agent has a court order for the information, it should be limited to the diagnosis or findings, not the entire file.
The agent should not get a court order for the information prior to an adjudication of abuse or neglect. If such an order has been made, you’ll want to file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal. Be sure to get a clear order for visitation and not something like, “parents will get regular visits”. The order should outline exactly how often visits should occur and what type of restrictions will be imposed on them. If you don’t have a clear order, you can file a Motion to Clarify with the court. In summary; before you do anything, require a court order. If you want something, seek a court order. If the state fails to comply with any court order, you can file a Motion to Show Cause to hold the agency in contempt of court. If you disagree with an order, file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal. If you’d like a court order explained more clearly, file a Motion to Clarify. These and other legal forms may be found at www.cpswatch.com/forms.
Dealing With CPS:Do Everything By Court Order
You should require a court order before complying with any “demands” the agency might make. When the agent starts saying you need to do this or that, your response might be:
Mrs. Government Agent, I’m happy to do all that is asked of me by the court. Do you have a court order for the things you are asking? The agent might say, “No I don’t have a court order, but the court will require you to do the things I’m asking anyway and it will please the judge if you have them completed early.”
By now, this person is likely someone that you greatly distrust. If the agent is anything like the norm, she’s already lied to you, misled you and broken several laws and procedures. Certainly you wouldn’t believe anything a person of this stature says without collaborating it first. Your response to the above statement might be:
I’m thankful that you are trying to assist me in completing things you believe the court might require of me. I appreciate your concern.
However, I wish to follow the legal channels set in place for matters such as these. I know the court will base requirements imposed on me on specific findings of abuse or neglect. I prefer to wait for my day in court to defend the allegations made against me rather than acting as a guilty person by complying with demands put on child abusers now.
I’m confident the evidence will support my innocence and the court will be able to see through the allegations and not impose conditions on me intended for child abusers. You do not need to take child rearing (parent training) classes or have a psychological evaluation until it is court ordered. It shouldn’t be court ordered until the court has adjudicated you guilty of abuse or neglect. Sometimes, however, courts get in the habit of ordering all parents to complete child rearing classes, psychological evaluations and drug screens as part of the temporary orders. They believe it is an easy (and lazy) way of moving cases through the system more quickly. However, federal courts have held that such restrictions can’t be imposed on parents without first finding that abuse or neglect did occur and second, finding some cause that the requirements are actually needed.
Even after abuse or neglect has been adjudicated; before a psychological evaluation can be ordered, there needs to be some justification for it, rather than simply ordering them for all parents. The same applies to drug screens. There must be some reason to suspect drug use and it’s relationship to child abuse before a drug screen can be imposed. Likewise, there needs to be some judicial finding of parental unfitness before child rearing classes can be imposed. If a Judge orders these things in the temporary orders in your case, you should object orally in open court while they are being ordered. Your response might be:
Your Honor, we object to these requirements being imposed without a judicial finding that creates a need for them. The court is so accustomed to doing everything with a rubber-stamp and herding families through like cattle, that you’ll need to show them you’re a little different; you’re actually going to insist on compliance with the law. [Editor's Note: In some instances, balking at a drug test can be construed as an admission of guilt. If your children are important to you, a drug test shouldn't be an issue. If there is a substance abuse problem, the quicker you seek treatment, the sooner you'll be well. Don't be afraid to admit to a judge your mistakes in the past that you've conquered. Do be afraid to go before a judge and think you could conceal drug problems.]
The Judge may ignore your objection and impose the requirements anyway. If this happens, you should file an appeal to the state court of appeals. Contact the CPS Watch legal department for assistance in finding caselaw to use for the appeal. If you aren’t in open court when the orders are made, but they are simply provided to you later, you’ll need to file a Motion to Reconsider with the court asking them to remove the restrictions imposed before you appeal. In other words, you need to give the Judge an opportunity to voluntarily rescind the orders before going to the appellate court.
Sometimes it may be to your advantage to voluntarily complete some things outside of a court order. If this is the case, it should be done completely on your own, because you want to or need to, and without the advice or assistance of the state agent. As an example, if the state is alleging that you were “high” at the time the children were taken, you may want to rush to the hospital for a drug screen to prove you weren’t. Or the allegations might be that you are “often stoned” and leave the child to fend for himself. In this case, you might choose to get a drug evaluation to offer as evidence in your defense.
There might be an allegation that you are mentally unstable because your mother committed suicide or some other reason. You could choose to get a psychological evaluation to combat these accusations. If you have an evaluation or take child rearing classes, either by court order or by choice, choose your own therapist. Do not go to the person the state agent recommends. When interviewing therapists or counselors, ask them if they contract with the state. If they do, go elsewhere. If you have reason to distrust the state, it doesn’t make much sense to trust those that do business with the state.
When choosing a therapist or counselor, question them closely to make certain they share or respect your closely-held convictions. If you are Christian, choose a Christian counselor or enroll in a Christian-based child rearing class. If you are a vegetarian, choose a counselor that will respect the choice you’ve made for your family. If you homeschool, chose a counselor that understands and respects homeschooling. Do not sign a release of information for the state agent to speak with your therapist or obtain records. If you’ve gone voluntarily prior to a finding of abuse or neglect, you will bring the information to court with you to use in your defense. There’s no reason for the state agent to have it unless they have a court order. If the agent has a court order for the information, it should be limited to the diagnosis or findings, not the entire file.
The agent should not get a court order for the information prior to an adjudication of abuse or neglect. If such an order has been made, you’ll want to file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal. Be sure to get a clear order for visitation and not something like, “parents will get regular visits”. The order should outline exactly how often visits should occur and what type of restrictions will be imposed on them. If you don’t have a clear order, you can file a Motion to Clarify with the court. In summary; before you do anything, require a court order. If you want something, seek a court order. If the state fails to comply with any court order, you can file a Motion to Show Cause to hold the agency in contempt of court. If you disagree with an order, file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal. If you’d like a court order explained more clearly, file a Motion to Clarify. These and other legal forms may be found at www.cpswatch.com/forms.
Are Poor Parents Bad Parents?
This article was taken from our friends over at the Legally Kidnapped site. CPS love to bully those who cannot afford attorneys.
Surely the vast majority of poor parents do the best they can for their children. Still, a disproportionate number of them wind up losing their children to child welfare agencies.
One reason seems to be that more child abuse and neglect actually occur in poor families. According to the latest U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, children in families with incomes below $15,000 a year were 14 times more likely to be harmed by some form of abuse and 44 times more likely to be endangered by physical neglect than children in families with annual incomes of at least $30,000.
Data like these have led the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform to call the view that child mistreatment cuts across class lines a myth. After all, it says, child abuse is linked to stress, and poor families tend to be under more stress than rich families.
But, as NCCPR goes on to argue, many child protection laws virtually define poverty as neglect. In Illinois, for example, it’s failure to provide “care necessary for [a child's] well-being.” Here in the District of Columbia, negligent treatment is “failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.”
The D.C. law goes on to make an exemption for deprivation due to lack of financial means. But there are reasons to believe this is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Consider, for example, that 34 children were put into foster care last year because of “inadequate housing.”
Perhaps other reasons were linked to poverty as well. More than half the 2008 foster care placements the Child and Family Services Agency reports were because of “neglect (reported/alleged).” There’s a lot of room here for judgments based on how well children fare when their families are poor.
Now we all know what happens when child welfare agencies leave children in homes where they shouldn’t be. But there’s also a lot of evidence that children are taken away from their parents when other options would be better for them.
What if the parents who lost their children due to “inadequate housing” had received housing vouchers or other assistance to improve their living conditions? We’ll never know.
What we do know is that a number of studies indicate that children are seriously damaged by foster care placements. For example, a large study of young adults who’d been in foster care found that they had twice the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder as Iraq war veterans. A third of them reported some form of maltreatment by an adult in the foster care home. Only 20% of them could be said to be “doing well.”
And then there are the horrible cases of children who died from abuse or neglect in foster care homes. So when we see an exponential increase in foster care placements, as we have in D.C., we shouldn’t conclude that the child welfare system is working. We should try to find out more about the cases. Were the children being abused or willfully neglected? Or was the “neglect (reported/alleged)” something that could have been readily addressed by safety net programs or other services?
Or do a fair number of the placements reflect misjudgments on the part of the caseworkers? Professor Matthew Fraidin at the University of the District of Columbia Law School recently testified that 60% of the cases handled by his students resulted in the children’s being returned to their homes because, when confronted, CFSA agreed they weren’t being abused or neglected.
Was any racial prejudice involved? According to the latest CFSA assessment by the Center for the Study of Social Policy, as of January 2009, 98% of the children in out-of-home placements whose race was known were black. That’s about a third more than the percent of D.C. children who are black. Seems like an awfully big point spread to me. And here again we’ve got studies that make the question worth asking.
Unfortunately, neither we nor interested experts can get a good fix on whether children are being taken away from their parents because of their poverty and/or race. Here in D.C., as in most states, child welfare proceedings and records are closed to everyone not directly involved in the case.
What would happen if we let some sunshine in?
Surely the vast majority of poor parents do the best they can for their children. Still, a disproportionate number of them wind up losing their children to child welfare agencies.
One reason seems to be that more child abuse and neglect actually occur in poor families. According to the latest U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, children in families with incomes below $15,000 a year were 14 times more likely to be harmed by some form of abuse and 44 times more likely to be endangered by physical neglect than children in families with annual incomes of at least $30,000.
Data like these have led the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform to call the view that child mistreatment cuts across class lines a myth. After all, it says, child abuse is linked to stress, and poor families tend to be under more stress than rich families.
But, as NCCPR goes on to argue, many child protection laws virtually define poverty as neglect. In Illinois, for example, it’s failure to provide “care necessary for [a child's] well-being.” Here in the District of Columbia, negligent treatment is “failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.”
The D.C. law goes on to make an exemption for deprivation due to lack of financial means. But there are reasons to believe this is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Consider, for example, that 34 children were put into foster care last year because of “inadequate housing.”
Perhaps other reasons were linked to poverty as well. More than half the 2008 foster care placements the Child and Family Services Agency reports were because of “neglect (reported/alleged).” There’s a lot of room here for judgments based on how well children fare when their families are poor.
Now we all know what happens when child welfare agencies leave children in homes where they shouldn’t be. But there’s also a lot of evidence that children are taken away from their parents when other options would be better for them.
What if the parents who lost their children due to “inadequate housing” had received housing vouchers or other assistance to improve their living conditions? We’ll never know.
What we do know is that a number of studies indicate that children are seriously damaged by foster care placements. For example, a large study of young adults who’d been in foster care found that they had twice the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder as Iraq war veterans. A third of them reported some form of maltreatment by an adult in the foster care home. Only 20% of them could be said to be “doing well.”
And then there are the horrible cases of children who died from abuse or neglect in foster care homes. So when we see an exponential increase in foster care placements, as we have in D.C., we shouldn’t conclude that the child welfare system is working. We should try to find out more about the cases. Were the children being abused or willfully neglected? Or was the “neglect (reported/alleged)” something that could have been readily addressed by safety net programs or other services?
Or do a fair number of the placements reflect misjudgments on the part of the caseworkers? Professor Matthew Fraidin at the University of the District of Columbia Law School recently testified that 60% of the cases handled by his students resulted in the children’s being returned to their homes because, when confronted, CFSA agreed they weren’t being abused or neglected.
Was any racial prejudice involved? According to the latest CFSA assessment by the Center for the Study of Social Policy, as of January 2009, 98% of the children in out-of-home placements whose race was known were black. That’s about a third more than the percent of D.C. children who are black. Seems like an awfully big point spread to me. And here again we’ve got studies that make the question worth asking.
Unfortunately, neither we nor interested experts can get a good fix on whether children are being taken away from their parents because of their poverty and/or race. Here in D.C., as in most states, child welfare proceedings and records are closed to everyone not directly involved in the case.
What would happen if we let some sunshine in?
More Information On Our Class Action Lawsuit
This message is to be taken very seriously. For those of you who have been falsely accused by CPS and are fed up with CPS corruption, the time has come to stand up and be counted. Please read the following information from Lisa with Abuse Freedom.
One of the most imporant aspects of organizations like Defeat DCS, Abuse Freedom, and others is we are legitimate advocates. We are not in the business of bitching and moaning. We are in the business of ending corruption and making a difference. For those of you reading this site and other sites, listen to what we have to say. There is nothing more painful than losing a child, especially when you are innocent. Many of you have been forced to file for bankruptcy or are close to losing everything. Remember CPS is not about protecting children, it is money motivated. Sitting back and complaining isn't getting anything done. What you have to do is take action. Unfortunately contacting our political leaders has been an epic fail. They don't care because they are part of the problem. The only way to get through to these people is to sue. We want media coverage and we want to hit them where it hurts, their pocketbooks. This is not about money. If I may speak personally for a moment, I don't give a damn about ever seeing a dollar from this lawsuit (though the more people participate, the more money we can ask for). Myself and everyone involved in this and other organizations want justice and CPS's days is coming. Will you join us, will you become an active part of taking them down?
ABOUT ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS:
first, class action suit:
cheryl's husband is working on a new class action
intake form;
the new form should be available to us by Sunday!
we have 2 attorneys working on this class action,
of which one is located in Washington DC;
and it is important that we get as many people
as we can to join in on this class action suit;
the attorneys will take their fees/payments out of the
monetary value we hopefully win at the end of this
suit; the more people join, the more money we can
request, to cover all of the destroyed families.
the attorneys had also asked us to become more
organized, by forming individual groups for each state,
and having one person be in charge of that state's
groups, being responsible for updates.
ABOUT ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS...STATE GROUPS:
Cheryl had asked me to ask others who would like to
be in charge of their state's groups..
I am in charge of New Jersey's group;
and I will be working on that group tonight..(hopefully)
Cheryl would like to groups to be on the ning network,
which is easier to be connected to major group,
Abuse Freedom United Against CPS,
so each group would follow suit,
ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS~(initials of your state)
for example, the New Jersey would is called,
ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS~NJ
if anyone wants to learn about class action suits, we
can refer them to the largest class action suit (to date?)
via the infamous Erin Brockervich (sorry if I mispell her
name)
ABOUT ERIN AND THAT FAMOUS CLASS ACTION SUIT SHE INSPIRED:
she has a facebook, as well as a myspace pages;
I've asked her over 2 years ago if she could assist
friends of mine with a class action suit, and she
declined, as she is unfamiliar with famiily law, choosing
to stick to environmental law.
I am also going to post this message on groups,
as well as yahoo groups...
my email for anyone who needs info on class
action suit and/or form is:
njgrandma4justice1@gmail.com
Lisa
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"Eleanor Roosevelt
njgrandma4justice@yahoo.com
myspace.com/njgrandma4justice
http://afufightingcps.ning.com/profiles/message/listInbox?xg_source=msg_mes_private
One of the most imporant aspects of organizations like Defeat DCS, Abuse Freedom, and others is we are legitimate advocates. We are not in the business of bitching and moaning. We are in the business of ending corruption and making a difference. For those of you reading this site and other sites, listen to what we have to say. There is nothing more painful than losing a child, especially when you are innocent. Many of you have been forced to file for bankruptcy or are close to losing everything. Remember CPS is not about protecting children, it is money motivated. Sitting back and complaining isn't getting anything done. What you have to do is take action. Unfortunately contacting our political leaders has been an epic fail. They don't care because they are part of the problem. The only way to get through to these people is to sue. We want media coverage and we want to hit them where it hurts, their pocketbooks. This is not about money. If I may speak personally for a moment, I don't give a damn about ever seeing a dollar from this lawsuit (though the more people participate, the more money we can ask for). Myself and everyone involved in this and other organizations want justice and CPS's days is coming. Will you join us, will you become an active part of taking them down?
ABOUT ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS:
first, class action suit:
cheryl's husband is working on a new class action
intake form;
the new form should be available to us by Sunday!
we have 2 attorneys working on this class action,
of which one is located in Washington DC;
and it is important that we get as many people
as we can to join in on this class action suit;
the attorneys will take their fees/payments out of the
monetary value we hopefully win at the end of this
suit; the more people join, the more money we can
request, to cover all of the destroyed families.
the attorneys had also asked us to become more
organized, by forming individual groups for each state,
and having one person be in charge of that state's
groups, being responsible for updates.
ABOUT ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS...STATE GROUPS:
Cheryl had asked me to ask others who would like to
be in charge of their state's groups..
I am in charge of New Jersey's group;
and I will be working on that group tonight..(hopefully)
Cheryl would like to groups to be on the ning network,
which is easier to be connected to major group,
Abuse Freedom United Against CPS,
so each group would follow suit,
ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS~(initials of your state)
for example, the New Jersey would is called,
ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED AGAINST CPS~NJ
if anyone wants to learn about class action suits, we
can refer them to the largest class action suit (to date?)
via the infamous Erin Brockervich (sorry if I mispell her
name)
ABOUT ERIN AND THAT FAMOUS CLASS ACTION SUIT SHE INSPIRED:
she has a facebook, as well as a myspace pages;
I've asked her over 2 years ago if she could assist
friends of mine with a class action suit, and she
declined, as she is unfamiliar with famiily law, choosing
to stick to environmental law.
I am also going to post this message on groups,
as well as yahoo groups...
my email for anyone who needs info on class
action suit and/or form is:
njgrandma4justice1@gmail.com
Lisa
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"Eleanor Roosevelt
njgrandma4justice@yahoo.com
myspace.com/njgrandma4justice
http://afufightingcps.ning.com/profiles/message/listInbox?xg_source=msg_mes_private
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Do You Want To Be a Part of a Major Class Action Lawsuit?
We have some potentially thrilling news to report. It appears an attorney has been found for a major class action lawsuit against Children's Services. This is where you come in. We are looking for people interested in becoming a part of the lawsuit from ALL states. f you are interested in joining the cause, please email Jane@abusefreedom.com. You will not be asked for money. The time has come for CPS to be held accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
